The following notes were compiled from FBI files, newspaper accounts and court documents. They are far from complete. Worth noting, the bulk of the FBI file on August Chiaverotti was destroyed by the government and therefore whatever it contained is likely lost. (Or not. The files cross-reference each other so much that 90% of Chiaverotti’s file is probably still in other files.) A fuller biography of Chiaverotti is elsewhere on this website.
(Jack Mann filed a patent for a holster to fir the bubble gun in on May 19, 1958.)
March 9-14, 1958: Frank Balistrieri was at a New York hotel. The file is redacted, but he seems to have been there with union representatives. In New York he visited the National Toy Show as part of Atomic Sales, Inc and their plastic bubble gun.
December 3, 1958: The Para Corporation was incorporated with an address at 2044 North Third Street. Albert C. Reinhart was president, Frank Balistrieri was secretary-treasurer. Both were also directors in addition to attorney Edwin C. Rachow.
There was an examination on Tuesday, December 16, 1958 for a lawsuit involving Teamsters secretary Frank H. Ranney, cinder block firm operator Joseph Balistrieri (Frank and Peter’s father), Jack Rizzo and August Chiaverotti. These men were doing business as Atomic Industries, Inc. The man suing them was George N. Schwerbel, a Brookfield appliance repairman who was a co-patent owner on a bubble gun. Schwerbel thought he had sold the manufacturing rights to a company called Monarch Supply (owned by August Chiaverotti and Bob Schaefer), but Rizzo testified “it could be possible” that he transferred the rights to Dynamic Industries (the forerunner of Atomic Industries) on July 1, 1957. Once the suit was filed, Ranney sold his part of the business. By December 22, an agreement was reached that Schwerbel would receive 10% of the net profit from each gun produced.
September 2, 1959: An informant said Atomic Sales was still manufacturing the bubble gun while the patent case worked through the courts. A partner company, Para Packaging, existed to create packaging for the toy.
On January 6, 1960, a Chicago firm filed a lawsuit against August Chiaverotti and King Sales (3551 North Teutonia) for a trademark infringement on a toy telephone. Karen Industries had created the “Hi-Line Fone” and claimed that King had ripped off their design. (In April of 1959 the plaintiff originated and developed a toy telephone which is made up of two plastic cup transmitter-receivers held in a cardboard frame and connected by a length of light string. This toy is a refinement of the typical child’s string telephone in which the string is drawn tautly between the two transmitter-receivers, and the sound of the voice is transmitted along the line. In June of 1959 the plaintiff began to manufacture and market its toy telephone under the name “Hi-Fone”. On July 11, 1959, the defendant called upon the plaintiff and discussed the possibility of representing the plaintiff as a manufacturer’s representative in the distribution of its product. Apparently a tentative agreement was reached, and shortly thereafter fifty samples of the plaintiff’s toy were sent to the defendant to be used as an aid in his work. On September 16, 1959, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant as follows:
“Atomic Industries
“2044 N. 3rd St.
“Milwaukee, Wisconsin
“Attention: Mr. Guss Chiaverotti
“Dear Sir:
“On July 11, 1959, we were approached by you with the view of handling our `Hi-Fone String Telephone’ for nationwide distribution in addition to our other representative Mr. R.H. Mueller. At this time details were discussed and an understanding was arrived at that you would work with Mr. R.H. Mueller in the sales.
“In conjunction with the above agreement we sent you by Air Express on 7/13/59, fifty samples to be used on our behalf towards aiding of the sales of our `Hi-Fone String Telephone’.
“Since that time we have heard no more from you and now have been informed that you intend to manufacture this item yourself in a breach of confidence on the information described to you. Accordingly this is to advise you that we shall hold you accountable for all damages suffered by us for this breach of confidence and shall take all necessary legal actions to recover our damages plus whatever punitive damages as the courts may allow.
“Respectfully yours, “Karen Industries, Inc. “Walter S. Gajdosik
“WSG:dl “c.c. Mr. Frank Ranney “Mr. Albert Reinhart”
Plaintiff did not receive a reply to this letter. In December of 1959, it discovered that defendant was marketing an almost identical toy under the name “Hi-Line Fone”. It is of the same size and shape and prominently displays on its face the mark “Hi-Line Fone” together with drawings of two children using the phone. In addition, the phrases “String Telephone,” “For Girls And Boys,” “It Really Works,” and “Sensational Toy” appear on the label. These are the same phrases which appear on the face of plaintiff’s “header” and are only sightly rearranged as to position on the label.
At the time this motion was heard, the defendant testified that he had an inventory of approximately one and one-quarter million sets of the toy in question. Of these one and one-quarter million sets, three hundred fifty to four hundred thousand were assembled while the rest were in component parts. Chiaverotti estimated that his investment in this inventory was in the neighborhood of $18,000. He further testified that the toy telephone manufactured by the parties was a novelty item, in contrast to a standard toy such as an electric train, and had a marketing life of about one year. Judge Grubb wrote, “The evidence clearly shows that the defendant not only intentionally copied the unpatented toy of the plaintiff but also deliberately adopted a close facsimile of the plaintiff’s trademark in a manner calculated to appropriate to himself the good will built up by the plaintiff.”
February 27, 1961: The FBI spoke with someone at Parapak (3630 North Fairmount), and they said Parapak never did business with Atomic Industries and their bubble gun. However, Neopak (which was now bankrupt) had done business with August Chiaverotti and Joseph Balistrieri (Frank’s father). Much of the file is redacted at this point, but there seems to be some trouble between one of these companies and a union. Way too redacted to speculate.
March 6, 1961: A heavily redacted file says that a man, who asked his name be kept confidential, had invested in “various ventures” connected to August Chiaverotti and the Balistrieri family because of Chiaverotti’s “sales ability.”
April 21, 1961: The FBI interviewed a man associated with both the Para Corp (500 North Florida Street) and Real Refrigeration. The man said Frank Balistrieri was taking a more active interest in Para lately, stopping in to the office two afternoons a week to look over the books and sign checks. The man did not understand how Balistrieri successfully ran nightclubs because he seemed to show no real acumen as a businessman. This success had him “mystified.” (The name of the man is redacted, but is possibly Albert Reinhart because the Reinhart family still owns Real Refrigeration in Brookfield as of 2023.)
On March 30, 1962, an informant said that Frank Balistrieri felt Albert Reinhart was on a „bender.“ Frank needed more money from Reinhart, or some furnishings at Para Corp were going to be repossessed.
Special Agents Knickrehm and Holtzman interviewed Al Reinhart on January 7, 1963 regarding the Para Corporation. He said he was brought in to the company through Gus Chiaverotti, but that Chiaverotti is rarely around now because he is trying to get new contacts. Walter Brocca was around daily and was in charge of manufacturing. Chiaverotti had a salary of $150 per week, and Brocca was paid $130. Reinhart said the business was not successful, and he had acquired 2/3 of the stock, with 1/3 in the possession of Frank Balistrieri. He did not know Balistrieri, who had no active part in the company, other than that Balistrieri told him that Joseph Gurera would be looking after his interest for him. Reinhart had not seen Gurera around Para either. Reinhardt said he would be willing to sell the company at a loss. Later this same year, Para went under and the building was largely used as a front to fraudulently remodel jukeboxes.